What is the scriptural warrant to confine song in public worship to Psalms only?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
No former "song" appointed to be sung in corporate worship can be proved to exist. On the basis that there is no other song appointed for use in "public worship," the limiting function of the regulative principle indicates exclusive psalmody.
Actually, I believe it can be so proved -- though it is not necessary for the OP that I prove it. Rather, the burden is upon you. So I'll give you what I regard as proof of it, but the real onus is on you to demonstrate that my exegesis is incorrect and not even plausible.

2 Chr 29:28 says:

And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished.
Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:

Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped.
The point is, even under the reformer's watch, there was signing that was not the Psalms, and after that, Hezekiah had the Psalms sung. V. 30 would not make sense if v. 28's singing were Psalms.

2 Sam. 23 indicates the "inspired" nature of the songs we know were appointed for public worship; we do not know of any other songs appointed for public worship; hence all the songs appointed for public worship were "inspired." The "exclusivity" of the argument comes from the fact that Scripture is silent as to the use of any other compositions.
But it is not silent, as I have just demonstrated.

It clearly shows temple singing that was not from the Psalms (2Chr 29:28).
Try as one may, one cannot draw that conclusion from that text as it states nothing concerning the matter sung.
While it does not say what the song was, it quite clearly could not have been the Psalms, or v. 30 would make no sense.
 
Last edited:

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Clark,

I always enjoy when I see you jump into a thread. I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.
 

John Lanier

Puritan Board Junior
I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.
I would also add to this that in our orders of worship, sometimes we sing a psalm, read scripture and then sing another psalm. So I could say that we sang, read, and then sang a psalm. In both instances we sang a psalm but I only mentioned it one time.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Clark,

I always enjoy when I see you jump into a thread. I am not sure, however, that this is a necessary conclusion to draw from the text; Hebrew narrative often states things that sound repetitive to our ears. I would note that v.29 states that "all present" bowed their heads and worshiped; then, v.30 again states that they all bowed their heads to worship. So we have in v.28 songs being sung; and in v.30 the statement that the Psalms were commanded to be sung; but we also have in v.29 and v.30 the repetitive statement that they all bowed down. This parallel suggests it is hard to make a case that v.28 must represent different songs than v.30. Either way, the text (strictly considered) is slightly ambiguous.
Paul,

Thanks for the encouragement.

Now, were this poetry, I would certainly have arrived at that conclusion myself. However, given that it is prose, and given that the syntactic construction indicates sequence, I'm driven to conclude that it is sequential. But of course, according the the format of this thread, all I have to do is demonstrate that it is reasonable to read it this way.
 

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
Rather, if one does not agree that it was given in that context, conclusive biblical argument should be given to show otherwise.
The person making the positive assertion is the one who is obliged to show the context in which the assertion can be proven true.
Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.

While I will grant that Eph 5 (and Col) state three categories of songs to be song that include those that are Psalms, those categories are larger than the Psalms.

The assertion that only inspired songs be song is still not established in scripture with either a positive command which has no other meaning, or a negative prohibition against other songs. Historical narrative, while useful in many ways, is not didactic teaching and must be view as secondary in establishment of doctrine.

No one would argue that we are to sing to the Lord in worship. That is clearly taught. The question and what you wish to establish is that it could only be Psalms. In saying "only" you have to do more than just establish that Psalms are appropriate for worship. That is without question. So showing how Psalms were brought into worship is interesting, but it has no merit for the discussion. That singing Psalms is okay is not the issue ... the command to sing does not restrict singing to only those things that are not Psalms, so it is okay to sing them.

The command to sing is clear (Psalm 100:2 ... which is in the Psalms, but says nothing of restriction to only those works that are inspired.) So making the positive assertion that only Psalms were commanded (when Psalm 100 does not clearly state that) means it must be proven.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Perhaps I'm wrong, but there appears to be some inconsistency in that assertion. Did you not make the assumption that it necessarily means "Holy Spirit" with no exegetical presentation or "demonstration" on your part? The thread was presented that those espousing EP are to provide scriptural "proof," not simple assertions.
I provided the prima facie meaning of "spiritual." If there is some deviation from this prima facie meaning it will need to be demonstrated from context. Strongs is no help, and certainly appealing to the broader word range of "spirit" is next to useless.

I don't think you would have made that statement if you had read those psalms before countering.
:lol: Would you like to be taken seriously?

Since a huge minority of the psalms are written by anonymous authors, this seems like speculation rather than any exegetical conclusion.
The NT assumes Davidic authorship of these Psalms; Heb. 4:7, "Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts."
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:
One would have a great deal of trouble understanding the structure of many Hebrew narratives if this were made a grammatical rule. Is there nothing more substantial that can be presented than this?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.
The assertion has been presented on the basis that the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality. The Psalms only position is established by the absence of any precept or precedent warranting songs of another nature.
 

NaphtaliPress

Administrator
Staff member
And for which by way of reminder to all, per the OP, please see the other thread and do not pursue the warrant for uninspired song composure for worship here.
Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.
The assertion has been presented on the basis that the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality. The Psalms only position is established by the absence of any precept or precedent warranting songs of another nature.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
Then in v. 30, which begins with a narrative preterit (best translated, "then" or "next" -- but "moreover" is okay), it says:
One would have a great deal of trouble understanding the structure of many Hebrew narratives if this were made a grammatical rule. Is there nothing more substantial that can be presented than this?
Rev. Winzer,
How would you have me respond to this? You have ceased debate. I am making an exegetical case based on Hebrew syntax. If you have another way of understanding the narrative preterit, please make the case. Or, if you have a significant sample of texts where this understanding of the same syntax would be problematic to be understood this way, I'd like to see it. But I have come to hold your debating skills in far higher esteem than is warranted by this response.
Respectfully,
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Wannabee

Obi Wan Kenobi
I provided the prima facie meaning of "spiritual." If there is some deviation from this prima facie meaning it will need to be demonstrated from context.
Actually, Strong's was of help. You said you were not aware of anywhere where "spiritual" meant anything but of the Holy Spirit. I simply provided proof.
In regard to Ephesians, you really didn't deal with the text nor provide exegetical "proof." You made clear and plausible assertions, but provided no proof. I provided a very clear and common alternative to your understanding of "spiritual" in Ephesians. Whether you accept it or not, I would assert that it is the more common understanding. Commentaries can be provided if necessary (Hoehner, Lincoln (WBC), Hodge, Spence (TPC), Calvin, Matthew Henry).

I don't think you would have made that statement if you had read those psalms before countering.
:lol: Would you like to be taken seriously?
Obviously my comment was sarcastic, as was your response. I provided text from the Psalm that proves it was, at the very lease, exilic.

With all due respect, and I appreciate the time and effort invested, unless I'm simply missing something, efforts to "prove" the EP position seem more like an effort to justify a position. I am failing to see actual proof from Scripture.

There is an insulting character to some of the posts, of which I am also guilty. I repent and ask forgiveness, and will strive to refrain from such banter, for it dishonors Christ.

Again, thank you for your time and effort. It is enlightening. I'll close with this quote from Spurgeon (from his exposition on Ephesians).
We should have thought that Paul would have said, “singing and making melody with your voice to the Lord;” but the apostle, guided by the Holy Ghost, overlooks the sound, which is the mere body of the praise, and looks to the heart, which is the living soul of the praise: “Making melody in your heart to the Lord,” for the Lord careth not merely for sounds, though they be the sweetest that ever came from the lip of man or angel; he looks at the heart. God is a Spirit, and he looks spiritually at our spiritual praises; therefore, let us make melody in our heart to the Lord.​

God's richest blessings,
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
The Cantate Domino [Isaiah 42:10-13], and the Surge, Illuminare [Isaiah 60] have been used liturgically in the Western Church since very early in her history.
Isn't their a differnce between using the Biblical Canticles found in places other then the Psalms and using hymns of purely human origin?
 

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
Yes, and those who espouse EP are making the positive assertion that the Psalms are the only songs to be sung.
The assertion has been presented on the basis that the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality. The Psalms only position is established by the absence of any precept or precedent warranting songs of another nature.
I do not agree that you have shown that to be true. While you make the positive assertion that only Psalms are to be sung, you would have to prove that those instance in the NT where there appears to be other songs being sung that they are indeed not songs being sung in worship (you are doing the positive assertion, and so it is incumbent to show that what appears to be songs are indeed not songs, otherwise, the assertion that "the corporate praise of both Old and New Testaments is of an "inspired" quality" is not proved, and the premise is not established. It is not enough to cast doubt if you are making the assertion, but you must prove conclusively.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
How would you have me respond to this? You have ceased debate. I am making an exegetical case based on Hebrew syntax. If you have another way of understanding the narrative preterit, please make the case. Or, if you have a significant sample of texts where this understanding of the same syntax would be problematic to be understood this way, I'd like to see it. But I have come to hold your debating skills in far higher esteem than is warranted by this response.
Respectfully,
I haven't debated the point because there is no point to debate. First, v. 28 does not say "what" was sung, and this is a discussion about "what" is to be sung. Without a definitive reference to an uninspired song, the fact remains that the Old Testament church only sang inspired songs. Secondly, the Hebrew form is such a commonplace feature of Hebrew narrative that some of the dynamic equivalent versions omit rendering it altogether. It does not necessarily indicate sequence because Hebrew is renowned for recapitulation. But even if it is accepted as sequential, there is nothing which indicates that the sequence introduces something "different" at v. 30. The "moreover" may in fact refer to a repetition of the same action, as indeed it does when we are told that two different groups "bowed themselves, and worshipped" in verses 29 and 30.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Actually, Strong's was of help. You said you were not aware of anywhere where "spiritual" meant anything but of the Holy Spirit. I simply provided proof.
Strongs is not proof; it is an "everyman's reference." Please provide a concrete occurrence which substantiates your claim. The only exception I can find to the word "spiritual" meaning "of the Spirit" is Eph. 6:12, which evidently points to something Christians are to battle against.

I provided text from the Psalm that proves it was, at the very lease, exilic.
No, you only provided references which speak of "captivity" and "Babylon." "Captivity" is also used in Davidic and Asaphic psalms. "Babylon" is more poetically understood as a mystical description of Edom; but if one wants to insist on a literal referent, there is no reason why the Psalm cannot be seen as a prophecy, especially considering that it contains a prophetic denunciation of Babylon in v. 8.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
you would have to prove that those instance in the NT where there appears to be other songs being sung that they are indeed not songs being sung in worship
That was accomplished in the relevant thread. In both threads the open hymnodist has failed to provide either precedent or precept for the imposing of uninspired words on congregational praise. This substantiates the point that the Scriptures only warrant the singing of songs of an inspired quality.
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
I think it is also important to point out an obvious argument for singing only Psalms in worship. God has given us a book of 150 songs in the middle of His Word. He has given us a perfect book of praise! :2cents:
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
The sort of recapitulation is a prominent feature of poetry. But this is prose.

The sequential nature of this construction is well-known among those versed in the syntax of biblical Hebrew.

If it is sequential, then there would be no point to the direction to sing the David and Asaph material in v. 30 -- they would have just done so in v. 28.

And if, which I'm forced by the syntax to believe, they sang something different from the Psalms in v. 28, then there is scriptural warrant to sing something non-psalmaic.

But I think you are missing the point of recent posts. You have made a sweeping assertion, and we are trying to get you to demonstrate it. You continue to demonstrate it by asserting it. This is hardly persuasive. The burden of proof is on you on this one.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The sort of recapitulation is a prominent feature of poetry. But this is prose.
The documentary hypothesis failed miserably to account for it in the Pentateuch.

The sequential nature of this construction is well-known among those versed in the syntax of biblical Hebrew.
As are the non-sequential exceptions.

If it is sequential, then there would be no point to the direction to sing the David and Asaph material in v. 30 -- they would have just done so in v. 28.

And if, which I'm forced by the syntax to believe, they sang something different from the Psalms in v. 28, then there is scriptural warrant to sing something non-psalmaic.
You cannot demonstrate that it was something different, but are simply assuming it for the sake of being argumentative. It has already been shown that the "moreover" does not exclude repetitive action between verses 29, 30.

But I think you are missing the point of recent posts. You have made a sweeping assertion, and we are trying to get you to demonstrate it. You continue to demonstrate it by asserting it. This is hardly persuasive. The burden of proof is on you on this one.
The only point this proves is that there are some who do not like the idea of being confined to that which God has appointed to be sung in worship, but will come up with almost anything to explain away the obvious presence of an inspired hymnal in the Bible.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
I admire Rev. Winzer's stamina in this thread!

There are several topics at work right now, and it's difficult to keep track of them all; but I'll try to address a few of them. First, the use of the term "spiritual" in Eph. 5:19 and Co. 3:16 has been brought forth a few times, wherein it has been pointed out that spiritual can have a diversity of meanings, even simply meaning about spiritual things, as opposed to physical. Okay, it could mean this; but conclusions, especially those upon which we base our worship need to be based upon more than hypothetical possibilities of word meanings. The question is not can it mean this; the question must be does it here mean this? The EP position is not harmed or intimidated by hypothetical meanings; the lesser meaning must be demonstrated. If the EP principle is demonstrated from other portions of scripture, then we know how to interpret Eph. 5:19.

Secondly, regarding the "moreoever" in Chronicles; this seems to be pressed beyond allowance; it has been shown within the very same passage that they same action (bowing) was performed distinctly by name both before and after the moreover, being coupled with the singing. This, at the very least, should give pause to pressing it too hard. Also, as with the above point, this can at the most be argued as a hypothetical objection: it could have been other songs. This is as confident an assertion as one could make. Thus, if the principle of EP stands, this objection is of no force. Arguments cannot revolve around hypothetical possibilities, but must deal with the principle itself.

The principle, being extracted from the particulars in which there is clear and explicit information, is that the quality of song commanded in the public worship of the LORD is inspired; in extraordinary circumstances, prophets and charismatic leaders lead the people in specific praises (i.e., Moses by the sea); for the normal temple worship, the LORD inspired certain authors to compose songs for perpetual use; there is never a clear or explicit command in either Testament for all to compose their own songs for worship, nor a clear example of such songs being used. Each explicit instance of song in normal, public worship has these two characteristics: 1.) It is a song; 2.) that is given by God. In light of this, the meaning of "spiritual" in Eph. 5:19 has some remarkable pedigree for meaning "inspired by the Spirit."
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
I think it is also important to point out an obvious argument for singing only Psalms in worship. God has given us a book of 150 songs in the middle of His Word. He has given us a perfect book of praise! :2cents:
Is it just the Psalms that is a perfect book of praise or is it the Bible that is a perfect book of praise? The Magnificat [Luke 1:46-55], the Benedictus [Luke 1:68-79], the Nunc Dimittis [Luke 2:29-32], the Cantate Domino from Isaiah 42, and the Surge Illuminare from Isaiah 60 are all examples of praise that have been used by the New Testament Church for most of her history.
 

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
Thomas,

There are many who have argued for exclusive Inspired Content, which would include the canticles you mentioned. The EP position, however, (as its name suggests) restricts the "praise book" to the 150 Psalms; this is done by arguing that other songs found in scripture, while inspired, were 1.) Composed on the occasion of specific events in Redemptive history, and 2.) Recorded for us in the historical narratives as historical record, and not in the canonical song book as canonical and prescribed song.
 

PresReformed

Puritan Board Freshman
I think it is also important to point out an obvious argument for singing only Psalms in worship. God has given us a book of 150 songs in the middle of His Word. He has given us a perfect book of praise! :2cents:
Is it just the Psalms that is a perfect book of praise or is it the Bible that is a perfect book of praise? The Magnificat [Luke 1:46-55], the Benedictus [Luke 1:68-79], the Nunc Dimittis [Luke 2:29-32], the Cantate Domino from Isaiah 42, and the Surge Illuminare from Isaiah 60 are all examples of praise that have been used by the New Testament Church for most of her history.
Thomas, the point I was making is that God has given us a complete book of songs. We have a Psalter in the Bible. The songs you listed are not songs at all. If God wanted us to sing them he would've included them in His inspired book of praise.
 

chbrooking

Puritan Board Junior
... The EP position is not harmed or intimidated by hypothetical meanings; the lesser meaning must be demonstrated. If the EP principle is demonstrated from other portions of scripture, then we know how to interpret Eph. 5:19....
The problem is, I don't see the EP principle being demonstrated. The only substantial passage that has been offered is the 2 Chronicles 29 passage. I don't think it would be unfair to say that the entire EP principle is hanging on what I regard as a doubtful interpretation of one verse of scripture.

Secondly, regarding the "moreoever" in Chronicles; this seems to be pressed beyond allowance; it has been shown within the very same passage that they same action (bowing) was performed distinctly by name both before and after the moreover, being coupled with the singing. This, at the very least, should give pause to pressing it too hard. Also, as with the above point, this can at the most be argued as a hypothetical objection: it could have been other songs. This is as confident an assertion as one could make. Thus, if the principle of EP stands, this objection is of no force. Arguments cannot revolve around hypothetical possibilities, but must deal with the principle itself....
Then entire passage lays out a very detailed sequence of events. Even the KJV's use of moreover demonstrates that the translators saw it as sequential, as moreover does not indicate a recapitulation, but "as a further matter" or "besides". But notice that the same syntax is used in v. 31, which has to be regarded as sequential. It is strange, too, that, if we took v. 30 as a recapitulation of the whole, as you guys seem to be suggesting, the offering -- arguably the most important part -- is missing from the recapitulation. I don't think I'm pressing the syntax beyond what it will bear. Even the context itself indicates sequence, and a recapitulation view is problematic because of what it does not contain. And if we take it not as a recapitulation, but as a repetition, I'm at a loss as to why the Psalms are brought in only in the second instance. You seem to be basing a very important doctrine on the assumption that the song in the first instance was the Psalms, when there really isn't any textual indication that it was. It seems to me that your prior commitment to the EP principle drives you to make that assumption. If that is the case, then I think you need to ground your EP principle on another text. That is, if you assume EP to interpret this passage that way, but turn around and ground EP on this interpretation, that is a significant problem In my humble opinion. I think you need to show explicit textual warrant for the EP position, as asked for in the OP. And since your interpretation of this passage involves a significant assumption, I'd like to see a different passage as the foundation for the EP position.

The sort of recapitulation is a prominent feature of poetry. But this is prose.
The documentary hypothesis failed miserably to account for it in the Pentateuch.
I'm not following you here. I don't hold to the DH, and don't understand how you are addressing my case at all.

The sequential nature of this construction is well-known among those versed in the syntax of biblical Hebrew.
As are the non-sequential exceptions.
Again, could you provide significant examples?

If it is sequential, then there would be no point to the direction to sing the David and Asaph material in v. 30 -- they would have just done so in v. 28.

And if, which I'm forced by the syntax to believe, they sang something different from the Psalms in v. 28, then there is scriptural warrant to sing something non-psalmaic.
You cannot demonstrate that it was something different, but are simply assuming it for the sake of being argumentative. It has already been shown that the "moreover" does not exclude repetitive action between verses 29, 30.
I apologize if I've come across as argumentative. I have tried very carefully not to. I think I've made an exegetical case, not an assumption. Since the EP principle is hanging on this verse, you seem to be arguing that because v. 28 and v. 30 could be referring to the same material for song, they must be.

What I'm getting at is this: You have a principle that guides you into what I regard as a forced interpretation of 2 Chr. 29:30, and when I ask what grounds your principle, you say 2 Chr. 29:30! I don't see how we can profitably move forward.

But I think you are missing the point of recent posts. You have made a sweeping assertion, and we are trying to get you to demonstrate it. You continue to demonstrate it by asserting it. This is hardly persuasive. The burden of proof is on you on this one.
The only point this proves is that there are some who do not like the idea of being confined to that which God has appointed to be sung in worship, but will come up with almost anything to explain away the obvious presence of an inspired hymnal in the Bible.
I actually do believe that we ought to worship as God has appointed. It's not that I don't like that idea at all. And I'm not trying to explain away anything of the sort. I'm only trying to get you to show me that this is, in fact, what God has appointed. So far, you have left me unconvinced. And I honestly believe that it is not my obstinacy that has prevented me from being convinced. It is, rather, the lack of a cogent case of the EP principle.
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
I'm not following you here. I don't hold to the DH, and don't understand how you are addressing my case at all.
I didn't claim you held to the DH; I was only pointing out that the DH failed to account for recapitulation in the Pentateuch after you referred recapitulation to poetry and passed it by as if it were not relevant to prose.

What I'm getting at is this: You have a principle that guides you into what I regard as a forced interpretation of 2 Chr. 29:30, and when I ask what grounds your principle, you say 2 Chr. 29:30! I don't see how we can profitably move forward.
The remarks of Keil will show that recapitulation is not something dreamed up to support EP, but is inherenty present in the text for anyone who has an eye for the structure of Hebrew narrative.

The king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words (psalms) of David and of Asaph; and they sang praise with joy, and bowed themselves and worshipped. This verse does not mean that the Levites began to sing psalms at the king's command only after the sacrificial act and the instrumental music (v. 27f.) had been finished, but it forms a comprehensive conclusion of the description of the sacrificial solemnities. The author of the Chronicle considered it necessary to make express mention of the praising of God in psalms, already implicite involved in the [Hebrew] v. 28, and to remark that the Levites also, at the conclusion of the song of praise, knelt and worshipped.
Again, H. L. Ellison in the New Bible Commentary:

The song of the Lord (27); it is now virtually universally recognized that the vast majority of the Psalms were written for use in the temple on various occasions; verse 30 makes it clear what was sung.
Clearly the passage is not being forced by these commentators to fit an EP argument.
 

Brian Withnell

Puritan Board Junior
Without a definitive reference to an uninspired song, the fact remains that the Old Testament church only sang inspired songs.
The statement that the OT church only sang inspired songs is without proof. Prior to the book of Psalms being written (or even David's birth) any songs being sung would have been or at least could have been uninspired. To conjecture that the Holy Spirit inspired on a case by case basis every sabbath songs for the congregation would seem highly suspect. If there were not songs inspired every sabbath, then there would have been at least a collection of songs that would have been sung, and it would seem absurd that these inspired songs would not have been preserved.

On what basis (other than begging the question) can you establish that only inspired songs were sung from the time of Adam to the time of David by those that were worshipping God (or even the time of Abraham to David)?

Remember, the lack of an example is not the proof that examples did not occur, only that examples were not recorded.
 

Theognome

Burrito Bill
Rev. Winzer,

Thus far, I have found your arguments to be dismissive at best and not presenting a cohesive argument for you position. We dialogued some on Deut. 31-32, but I do not see how you demonstrated any error in my position.

I am, however, not antagonistic towards EP, and actually am hoping that someone will give a well thought and non-abusive/dismissive position on the topic in favor of it. In this light, I present this question-

Concerning Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19, you have stated that spiritual in these texts (insert Greek here- I dunno how to make pneumatikos look right on-line) must, without any doubt, be referring to the Holy Spirit and thus mean that only those songs specifically documented by said Holy Spirit in the Word of God are valid for worship. Thus, since you have made this assertion, the burden of proof is unequivocally upon your person. Please demonstrate with sound exegesis the validity of this claim.

Theognome
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
The songs you listed are not songs at all. If God wanted us to sing them he would've included them in His inspired book of praise.
Greg;
Let's take up just the case of the Cantate Domino, beginning at the 10th verse of the 42nd Chapter of Isaiah. The text of scripture says,
"Sing to the Lord a new song,
His praise from the end of the earth."
Thus the Bible seems to teach that the passage in question is a song, not just some poetic work from scripture that the Church has set to music.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
Thomas,

There are many who have argued for exclusive Inspired Content, which would include the canticles you mentioned. The EP position, however, (as its name suggests) restricts the "praise book" to the 150 Psalms; this is done by arguing that other songs found in scripture, while inspired, were 1.) Composed on the occasion of specific events in Redemptive history, and 2.) Recorded for us in the historical narratives as historical record, and not in the canonical song book as canonical and prescribed song.
Paul;
Even though I oppose the use of instrumental music in the worship of God and do not approve of uninspired hymn singing; I understand that my position is not the position of the EP. It is the position of the Church, through most of her history, to sing not only the Psalms but other Biblical canticles, the Ten Commandments, the Lord' Prayer and creedal statements. [I take the Te Deum Laudamus to be a creedal statement.] This was also the position of the Church Order of Dordt. Since the EP is not the historic position of the Church Catholic [although it is the historic position of Scottish Presbyterianism and much of English Puritanism]; the obligation is on them, to show from God's Word, why we should adopt their innovation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top